Personal responsibility vs. Public safety net

[manifold]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

Its a question of whether one seeks to maximize achievement and individuality, or create a herd of ordinaries.

 

[California Girl]

I hate being told to 'discuss'. Always makes me say 'no'.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

Look how we allow our kids to be treated in school. We cater to the lowest achievers-particularly in the early grades. Indeed, many on the left would like to do away with the traditional means of rewarding achievement- with a letter grade. They want everybody to have a blue ribbon.

 

[manifold]

I hate being told to 'discuss'. Always makes me say 'no'.

Whatever you do, DO NOT discuss the topic of the op.

 

[American Horse]

I think it's time to remind many people here that these two ideals conflict, and at the margin, they are mutually exclusive. That is, any action that beefs up the public safety net, has a necessarily negative impact on personal responsibility and any action that weakens the safety net has a positive impact on personal responsibility. It's fundamental human nature. If you cast a wider safety net, more people will jump into it.

Some people advocate eliminating the safety net completely. This would surely force more people, for better or worse, to be responsible for their own needs.

Some people advocate for a public safety net that completely eliminates hardship, regardless of one's personal choices.

I prefer somewhere in between, but I certainly do not fool myself into thinking you can have the best of both.


Discuss.

We can, but only if more work is done in our educational system to instill in students beginning at an early age a sense of independence and being able to accomplish more for themselves. To begin with it would require that teachers concentrate less on indoctrination. Just removing the indoctrination that Corporations and/or business are evil-doers would go a long way. In Junior high more focus needs to be put on those students who are not as likely to go on to college to think about their future as future business people, something that would have a lot of appeal, and help develop a sense of independence, weaing them from a sense of hopelessness.

I remember my own son, who is now 39, particularly in junior high coming home from school and speaking about the evils of corporations and questioning our national "heroes". Right then I took care to refute that stuff by pointing out some examples in our own neighborhood, business people, doctors, etc., making sure he was exposed to and respected them as models for his own life.

My advice to him was the best way not to be just a "follower" was to think for himself, and not just repeat the ideas, and mantras of jealousy and cynicism of teachers and what he saw on TV. I'm happy to say that he is now an independent self employed contractor, and successful at it.

 

[California Girl]

I hate being told to 'discuss'. Always makes me say 'no'.

Whatever you do, DO NOT discuss the topic of the op.

There's a topic? How embarrassing - I missed that completely.

 

[Ravi]

Hate to say it, but CG is dead on.

 

[KMAN]

For a second I thought Ravi started this thread then I came to my senses and realized he would never support anything that requires personal responsibility...

 

[rightwinger]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

Absolutely. And you cannot "strive for the best" by simultaneously encouraging mediocrity.

 

[manifold]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

Define what you mean by "best?"

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Absolutely. And you cannot "strive for the best" by simultaneously encouraging mediocrity.

Oh, you mean like what marketing teams strive to create in consumers? Mindless, dumb, insecure droids that just know how to buy, buy, buy? Making sure that all citizens have basic health care does not exactly encourage mediocrity. In fact, it will make our country more competitive on a global scale, as it will take the burden of healthcare off of businesses. We know you want to live in a stinkhole where a handful of oligarchs control everything and the "unwashed" masses have to scrounge for a living like stray dogs, but you know, most of us would be very sad if our contry turned into that.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

Define what you mean by "best?"

What he means is, a man should not have to work to pay for the food he feeds his children, the house in which they reside, or the health care they receive. The "best" country- to a lefty like right-winger- is one that recognizes food, housing, and health care as fundamental rights for the government to hand out. Who cares if poor decision-making lead someone to be hungry, homeless, and in bad health? We must protect people from themselves....

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Absolutely. And you cannot "strive for the best" by simultaneously encouraging mediocrity.

Oh, you mean like what marketing teams strive to create in consumers? Mindless, dumb, insecure droids that just know how to buy, buy, buy? Making sure that all citizens have basic health care does not exactly encourage mediocrity. In fact, it will make our country more competitive on a global scale, as it will take the burden of healthcare off of businesses. We know you want to live in a stinkhole where a handful of oligarchs control everything and the "unwashed" masses have to scrounge for a living like stray dogs, but you know, most of us would be very sad if our contry turned into that.

All citizens already have basic health care. As for making us more competitive- at least you are unabashed in your desire to see government control the health insurance industry.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What he means is, a man should not have to work to pay for the food he feeds his children, the house in which they reside, or the health care they receive. The "best" country- to a lefty like right-winger- is one that recognizes food, housing, and health care as fundamental rights for the government to hand out.

No, this is not what he meant. Way to oversimplify, neocon. Congratulations on inserting as many righty talky points into this paragraph! You may want to look into a class for reading comprehension.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

What he means is, a man should not have to work to pay for the food he feeds his children, the house in which they reside, or the health care they receive. The "best" country- to a lefty like right-winger- is one that recognizes food, housing, and health care as fundamental rights for the government to hand out.

No, this is not what he meant. Way to oversimplify, neocon. Congratulations on inserting as many righty talky points into this paragraph! You may want to look into a class for reading comprehension.

That is exactly what he, and you, meant. Anytime you would prefer to have government control aspects of your life that you would otherwise be forced to deal with, you are seeking to have some higher authority protect you from yourself. Personally- I dont need that.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

at least you are unabashed in your desire to see government control the health insurance industry

Basic health insurance should not be an "industry". It should not be a for-profit endeavor. Besides, where did I imply that I want government to take over the health insurance industry?

 

[xotoxi]

What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want people begging in the streets to feed their children?
Do we want people sleeping in the streets?
Do we want people wandering among us carrying infectious disease?
Do we want people dying in the streets?

That is how third world countries operate. There is no "safety net" in third world countries. You live or die based on your lot in life.

We are the wealtiest country on earth. How do we want to be known based on our treatment of citizens?

Shouldn't we strive for the best?

No safety net:

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The problem with the "safety net" argument is that said "safety net" becomes a way of life for way too many.

This health care debate, if you can call it a debate, has nothing to do with healthcare. We al lknow this.